Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

45 Excellent

About MikeK

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

1,071 profile views
  1. To your point, I can cite the work in my sig which explains how the professionals, schooled in the campaigns of the Napoleoic Wars, devoted great effort to overlap and outflank their opponents, but both sides worked from the same training and methods which developed into lateral maneuver, extended works, and many a flank move developing into a frontal fight.
  2. The Ageod Pride of Nations 19th C Multiplayer games were the most fun I've had in MP grand strategy gaming - table or digital - a turn a day (each representing half a month) pace over decades of simulated time. and a couple years of realtime. The diplomatic and other correspondence (could keep a proactive player busy on some days trying to manage a situation before the daily turn deadline. The amount of time spent on global trade and economic dealings exceeded by far the periods of open conflict. Keeps in mind that war is a tool in service of broader ends. CW 2 is all about the war. A two-sided game, though I'd prefer more to better represent the east and west and issues of coordination. Because each player's AGEOD turn is a file, one player can do his moves and send to another player on his side who can do his and maybe change some orders before submitting them for processing.
  3. boottom line TLDR: You can't move out all units, leaving a Corps or a division with zero brigades.
  4. (1) Ashamed to admit I'd like to be beaten on in multiplayer UGCW. (2) Based on tabletop wargaming experience the American War of Independence with maneuver units at the battalion and detached company level would work as a game and would feel right, with a big battle feel for the largest engagements. The engine is already set up to accommodate light infantry and "Indian style" tactics. (3) Based on the modding design genius already shown with Total War mods and UGG and UGCW, I'm sure a convincing French Rev/Nappy Empire game would be well done. There are wargames models that properly capture the expertly managed psychological battle of tension between opposing sides approaching close quarters that rarely led to actual hand to hand combat in the open field without one side or the other withdrawing or breaking first. The phenomenon of actual close combat in the ACW is even more interesting. (4) A 19th C imperial age game Mating the UGCW engine to a rework of AGEOD's elegant strategic engine (Pride of Nations) ,and economic game with multiplayrer would be top of my wish list. You did ask for crazy, right? .
  5. Fresh question on the ambiguous explanation of Medicine in the guide pdf "f you want to reduce your battle losses, then you need to upgrade your Medicine Level. Each point heals 2% casualties and on maximum level 20%. After a battle the casualties of every unit are restored by this percentage. Certainly, this skill is very useful if you are an aggressive General. Medicine saves you money that you would spend for reinstating your Veteran brigades and also reserves a considerable number of recruits that you can use for growing your army." Per point, Is the restoration "2% of casualties" suffered or the much larger effect of restoring "casualties of 2%" of the unit?
  6. Thank you for the added detail. I infer from the explanation that the merging ritual should be set up safe from enemy interfence as the other units appear also to be distracted. The official guide pdf also mentions the divide command - - does that work, presumably with a unit of large size?
  7. A ell-laid fire of shot or shell is the most effective use of ammunition and more accurate. The barrel is kept cooler, well-swabbed, fused etc. Whereas canister (case) should get faster the nearer a dangerous target. When at risk from small arms fire of formed troops, stepping up rolling fire by the battery to attack the infantry's nerves and distract and disorganize.
  8. The mating rituals of brigades are indeed more intricate than I appreciated. Sounds like they need a safe space to merge after casting off their skirmisher screens to gain some privacy. I understand that this can be used to scrape up more rare firearms. but I've only sought to do it where brigades were just hit too hard, and without ending up with worse weapons. I may feel differently when I try the CSA in the final release version and see how their manpower and munitions challenges are. The effect on divisional command and having good men for the other brigades is a big issue to keep in mind and prepare for ahead of battle if possible. All my units have Corps and division number and status/equipment abbreviations for sorting them out in battle so I can keep track if considered in advance. Other question: does a greater distance from the divisional commander reduce the commander's effect? If so, there is reason for brigades of a division to stay nearby.
  9. Thanks So corps commanders are interchangeable for rallying, morale, etc other than buff circle size and, keeping divisions together confers no benefit vs mixing and matching units from various divisions or corps EXCEPT proximity helping to merge brigades. Can you describe correct best practice/technique to merging? I have tried it a few times - it seemed to work once - the other times it did not but the battle moved on.
  10. What benefits if any do corps commanders and divisional generals provide to nearby troops not of their command. In reality the brigades of divisions would usually stay and fight together, and I seek to do that for the historical fee, but I and other players would be curious what distinctions the game makes. Thanks.
  11. MikeK

    Combining units

    How does it work? Click combine on one brigade and the game decides what to do? Or maybe pick out two that are in the same division and click on both and then they move toward each other, disappear and reappear, or some thing else? I have given the order in battle but have not noticed anything happening. I have read that the weapon type is the majority type after a combination. Thanks
  12. (1) I liked the Divs by state idea at first, but found I wanted to reassign brigades around as needed and it didn't feel right nor useful to mix up states. Units that do very well can get unit names. (2) I now use states to designate greener units with the worst weapons (as state militia) e.g. II-4 Law Penn Mil rbf (3) Having commander names in the title is helpful in keeping track of officer casualties and other events. I usually leave the commander name (unless an epic unit) and prefix it with the corps and division number followed by the number of stars it has (4) then after the commander name an equipment code (since for some reason the unit card on the left of the screen does not show that bit of useful into unless it is clicked to expand) such as Lz or 55 or HFe or Pal etc. so IV-2**Jackson Fe is armed with Harper's Ferry rifles, has 2 stars, and is currently part of IV corps, 2nd Division. (6) Shock-purpose mounted are Cavalry" and ranged firearm mounted are "Dragoons" -since they are (7) US Snipers are Sharps, "CS ones Marks or just the name . Skirmishers are Lights or Rangers (8) LR is for long-range arty like the Whitworth One thing I have not yet done is code brigades for whether they focus on firepower or speed/shock/morale I had not thought of coding for those getting vet replacements as those are likely to be almost all 2 stars or more.
  13. I do not know what it means, but historically what it should represent is the main infantry line with the skirmishers spread out in small bunches in front. In the game, of course, skirmishers are able to be detached and go off on independent missions.
  14. It sounds like continued campaigns are locked into a specific easier difficulty level but using the new mechanics? Can those settings be adjusted for difficulty? If not, can Steam rollback the version to a good save-friendly version?
  15. I am curious to understand what you expect or find most players do? For feel as much as practicality, on suitable ground I like to maneuver and engage by divisions and give divisional orders where feasible as it fits the player command level and helps keep troops in good firing lines. I give corps movement orders on occasion, and have dared to give them independent operational directions at times for a realistic touch of command gastritis as I await results. I do like the battle to look and feel as a a battle should. But then i have time to do so, as I play at slow speed as that seems the closest to a realistic pace for the stages of an ACW engagement. One wish is that the pause function was adjustable. As I am often subject to frequent interruptions in play, I may easily forget and tap the pause key rather than click on the speed setting. What I saw in the video is a lot of quick decision-making and micro control at the brigade level to optimize combats. and clicking on units to show their movement directions that is a help for the viewer. What other styles are you seeing.
  • Create New...